 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Good Luck!
>>
>> Why thank you. I believe I'll be needing it... :-/
>
> Indeed! You will need it.
All we need now is for Warp to pop up and tell me that if only I used a
*real* programming environment like VisualStudio C++, I would only need
to click on a button and everything would instantly work right...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, my head hurts, I've learned a whole crap-load of stuff, and I'm
>> still nowhere nearer to my goal of being able to use COM. :-}
>
> Because none of that stuff is relevant to using COM. It is kind of like
> learning to drive a car by studying the chemical properties of petroleum
> products.
Maybe. But it's pretty interesting, all the same... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> All we need now is for Warp to pop up and tell me that if only I used a
> *real* programming environment like VisualStudio C++, I would only need to
> click on a button and everything would instantly work right...
Or Scott to pop up and tell you to just use a .net language and be done with
COM altogether.
What do you think of this?
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/rule30/code/1/rule30.fs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> All we need now is for Warp to pop up and tell me that if only I used
>> a *real* programming environment like VisualStudio C++, I would only
>> need to click on a button and everything would instantly work right...
>
> Or Scott to pop up and tell you to just use a .net language and be done
> with COM altogether.
So I have a choice between a nice programming language with limited
ability to access the outside world, or a language that can access the
outside world but can't actually do much with it. Great...
Actually, I already had this choice. Anything .NET can do, C++ can do.
Just don't expect it to help you in any way if you make a mistake.
Actually, come to think of it, there's always hand-written assembly...
> What do you think of this?
>
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/rule30/code/1/rule30.fs
I don't really understand all the graphics-related stuff that's
happening, but the definition of rule 30 itself seems relatively
straight-forward.
(I did briefly look at F# a while back, but abandoned it because it's
not really functional.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/rule30/code/1/rule30.fs
>
> I don't really understand all the graphics-related stuff that's happening,
> but the definition of rule 30 itself seems relatively straight-forward.
I just thought it seemed like a language where creating forms, graphics and
pixels was quite easy, without much need for boilerplate code. And...
> (I did briefly look at F# a while back, but abandoned it because it's not
> really functional.)
...Wikipedia claims it is functional (so I thought you'd like it), but I'll
believe you because I know almost nothing about this subject!
The other demos on their page are quite interesting to look at:
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't really understand all the graphics-related stuff that's
>> happening, but the definition of rule 30 itself seems relatively
>> straight-forward.
>
> I just thought it seemed like a language where creating forms, graphics
> and pixels was quite easy, without much need for boilerplate code.
Yeah, I'd need to sit down and learn the language syntax and how allthe
UI stuff actually works. (Every UI system seemingly has its own entirely
different event model and so forth...)
>> (I did briefly look at F# a while back, but abandoned it because it's
>> not really functional.)
>
> ...Wikipedia claims it is functional
People claim that Erlang is functional too. ;-) Hell, some people say
Lisp is functional...
> But I'll believe you because I know almost nothing about this subject!
Heh. ;-)
In fairness, if F# was *actually* functional, it wouldn't run very well
on the .NET runtime, nor interface with the .NET libraries. Both of
these things are object-oriented, not functional. So there are some
unavoidable design compromises to be made. If you accept that you're
designing a language to fit in with a large monolithic OO system,
there's a limit to how functional you can easily make it. So it's not
like they just don't know how to design a functional language...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Good Luck!
>>
>> Why thank you. I believe I'll be needing it... :-/
>
> Indeed! You will need it.
Heh. It's frustrating, really... I discovered that Windows XP and higher
has a thing called Windows Imaging Component (WIC), which allows you to
load and save PNG or JPEG images. This is what I'd like to do. However...
...in order to use it, you need to include the header file wincodec.h
(which I don't have), and you need to link in windowscodec.lib (which I
also don't have). It seems almost pointless to continue reading about
the API, because I can't actually call it anyway.
Hypothetically, if I could somehow discover the necessary GUIDs used by
WIC and the function indicies, I could get away with not having the
necessary header files. But without the include file, I don't think it's
possible to actually call anything. (The include file presumably
contains all the marshalling code to send the function arguments to the
function, which could theoretically be running on another PC. I can't
write this code manually.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/14/2009 9:39 AM, Invisible wrote:
> ...in order to use it, you need to include the header file wincodec.h
> (which I don't have), and you need to link in windowscodec.lib (which I
> also don't have). It seems almost pointless to continue reading about
> the API, because I can't actually call it anyway.
You probably will need to download the latest PlatformSDK from
Microsoft. That will contain all of the windows components you need,
even stuff to interface with Vista and Windows 7!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> All we need now is for Warp to pop up and tell me that if only I used
>> a *real* programming environment like VisualStudio C++, I would only
>> need to click on a button and everything would instantly work right...
>
> Or Scott to pop up and tell you to just use a .net language and be done
> with COM altogether.
Or both! Use a .NET language and tell it to interface itself to COM. ;-)
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/rule30/code/1/rule30.fs
Sweet. I haven't taken the time to figure out how they unify the functional
with all the stateful OO libraries.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> these things are object-oriented, not functional.
The "machine code" itself does pretty OK for functional. It's just all the
libraries (including most that you can't program without) are stateful.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
